It was a debate and she was responding to it. The Clinton campaign though hasn't put out ads or brought up that issue independently. It's not like Sanders doesn't jump on criticism of Clinton when brought up in debates. So apparently you do think that Univsion is in the pocket of the Clinton campaign. I suppose that's why Univision was also the first debate moderators to bring up indictment against Hillary Clinton. From what I saw they were pretty hard on both candidates. As opposed to bringing up ideas that aren't? We're in an election where the popular will of the people is what decides the winner. I give Sanders a lot of credit that he has moved those issues and if he wins he can rightfully claim that his views are more popular. That is still very uncertain.
Sanders would get blasted as a socialist in the general. I can't see him winning. Then again, against Trump he could. The other problem is that a Republican House would never work with him.
Univision is part of the corporate machine that has brainwashed the masses. You only feel the way you do because you have not been exposed to Bernie's message free of the influence of the corporate machine.
Republicans: The liberal media is biased, has lied and purposely attacked Republicans. Sanders supporters: The large corporate machine controls the press and brain washes people. Keep falling back on a bogeyman.......
Glynch you will just poop all over anything even if it helps to achieve your goals. It's crazy. I don't even know how this simple idea is dubious. I mean it doesn't greatly increase tax rates, but I think it benefits economic mobility without too much effort. You are talking about many moving parts and some of those moving parts are not on the federal level (sales tax). You should mention banning lotteries while you are at it. Anyhow, I'll explain it real quick. Part of the reason why the higher income earners pay a lower effective tax rate is because of the dividend tax rate and long term capital gains tax rate. If you cut that out then you have more equitable effective tax rates. Taxing muni bonds at rates higher than 0% would probably be a good idea as well. And I don't know why I have to explain this, but if you cut the federal taxes of the bottom 50% to 0% then you are saving them thousands of dollars a year in taxes which goes directly into their pockets. I don't understand what the problem is. Bernie's tax plan still had taxes on the bottom 50% which I think is just a bad idea. In my thinking upward mobility would be positively affected when you bring down the barriers of these tax burdens. You've got to explain to me why you think major federal income tax breaks on the bottom 50% are a bad idea. Hell you could bump it to the first $50,000 of income being tax free and it wouldn't really have a significant impact on the budget. Glynch you are beyond biased and extremely closed minded. You've got to try to open your mind up at some point, because you are acting in the same fashion as the people that you don't like on the Republican side.
Quit being a conspiracy freak. Are you implying that they might influence public opinion to advance corporate goals? Shame on you.
No need to explain to me how different types of income are taxed at different rates. Well, yeah but how is this simple to achieve? Your original post was correct. The bottom 50% pay little Federal income taxes, or capital gains etc. In fact quite a few get the Earned Income Credits, so eliminating this tax will not give them the thousands you talk about. Now if you remove the types of taxes they do pay such as their sales taxes or eliminating their social security "taxes" while still providing them with the same ss benefits by replacing their contributions from other sources, them maybe you are talking. Hey, I think your original post is well intentioned, but flawed in terms of major help for the lower 50%. .[/QUOTE] You are definitely naïve if you think clawing back the major redistribution of the wealth upward to the .1 or 1% will be easy regardless of how it is done whether something you or I propose or what Bernie has proposed. Sorry to say it but such redistribution will take the Political Revolution or for the working class to finally join by the millions the class struggle waged so very successfully by the upper .1% in the last 40 years.
Ms. Clinton will be the nominee because of the structure of party politics. The fix is in. But Bernie is controlling the rhetoric of the democratic campaign and influencing Ms. Clinton. That's really the best we can hope for in 2016. Going forward it should embolden progressive candidates and flip some contested districts. The issues will be about maintaining the momentum in the face of obstruction. I worry the kids will get frustrated and withdraw from politics altogether. This is a marathon over decades.
God I hope not. Everyone not a racist already is against Trump him blaming Bernie only puts more momentum in the Sanders campaign
The violence at the Trump rally was a direct consequence of the way Trump and his supporters behaved at previous rallies. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/index.html
Hate breeds hate. Trump was calling for protestors to be punched in the face, carried out on stretchers, etc. Earlier this week, a protestor who was being escorted out of a Trump rally was punched in the face. What happened in Chicago was disgusting and I do not condone it but it was inevitable. The protestors absolutely should have the right to protest but it should be peaceful. Violence does not solve anything. The way they acted was wrong but the way Trump acts towards protestors is similar to any dictator and it is the underlying reason. There have been protestors at Cruz rallies, Rubio rallies. Hell, there have been protestors at Sanders and Clinton rallies. There have been protestors at politician rallies for a long time. Nothing like this has happened before. This isn't a left or right thing, this is a Trump and hatred for Trump thing. Ted Cruz articulated it best, "in any campaign, responsibility starts at the top, any candidate is responsible for the culture of the campaign. When you have a campaign that disrespects the voters. When you have a campaign that affirmatively encourages violence. When you have a campaign that is facing allegations of physical violence against members of the press, you create an environment that only encourages this sort of nasty discord.” Furthermore, he also went on to say this on this in a different interview (which is very very well said):
